On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 9:11 AM, Sanjeev <sanjeev.bagew...@sun.com> wrote: > Sendai, > > On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 03:21:25PM -0800, Andras Spitzer wrote: >> Hi, >> >> When I read the ZFS manual, it usually recommends to configure redundancy at >> the ZFS layer, mainly because there are features that will work only with >> redundant configuration (like corrupted data correction), also it implies >> that the overall robustness will improve. >> >> My question is simple, what is the recommended configuration on SAN (on >> high-end EMC, like the Symmetrix DMX series for example) where usually the >> redundancy is configured at the array level, so most likely we would use >> simple ZFS layout, without redundancy? > > >From my experience, this is a bad idea. I ahve seen couple of cases with such > config (no redundancy at ZFS level) where the connection between the HBA and > the > storage was flaky. And there was no way for ZFS to recover. I agree that MPxIO > or any other multipathing handles failure of links. But, that in itself is not > sufficient. >
So what would you recommend then, Sanjeev ? - multiple ZFS pools running on a SAN ? - An S10 box or boxes that provide ZFS backed iSCSI ? -- Sriram _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
